posted at 6:41 pm on July 2, 2013 by Allahpundit

A follow-up to MKH’s crowd-pleasing item on Magpul from Saturday night. Magpul’s magazine giveaway was a last hurrah before the new law took effect on July 1; the stunt below was an act of defiance afterward, with Colorado cops fully empowered to haul these people in for transferring high-capacity mags. Would they do it? Or would the spectacle of arresting otherwise law-abiding gun owners for passing magazines around in a circle end up costing gun-control fans more in PR than they’d gain from having these folks off the streets for a few hours?

Rep. Dan Pabon, D-Denver, disagrees and warned that the activists got a pass on Monday.

Transfer is a class 2 misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in the pen and a $1,000 fine. Coming soon, maybe: A ballot initiative to undo the legal limits on magazine capacity. Although don’t get your hopes up about that. As we now know, if it passes and gets challenged in court, the people’s right to defend a law they’ve enacted themselves is … highly nuanced indeed.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

As we now know, if it passes and gets challenged in court, the people’s right to defend a law they’ve enacted themselves is … highly nuanced indeed.

Actually, this would be a much less problematic situation for supporters of the right to bear arms.

Suppose that Colorado passes a ballot initiative to legalize ammunition storage and feeding devices of any capacity. Then suppose that the state decides to arrest someone for selling a 30-round magazine anyway. That arrestee would definitely have standing to challenge the arrest, because he would be looking at jail time or a fine if he lost the case. He wouldn’t need to rely on proponent standing like the supporters of Prop 8 tried to do in California.

You know when you hand cops a law that is impossible to enforce on a large scale because too many people violate it, what really happens, right?

They pick and choose who to enforce it against, targeting people they don’t like and ignoring the rest. It actually makes cops MUCH more powerful and much more able to oppress citizens who, for example, oppose the police.

So grats, the cops won’t arrest you for this… unless you have a bumper sticker with a pot leaf, or you make a comment a cop doesnt like, or you look at a cop funny, or you’re black, or or or or or…

After Kennedy’s IDIOTIC decision on Prop. 8 the only recourse citizens have of challenging laws is by being directly affected by said laws. I am guessing this is what’s going on, people asking to be arrested so that THEY HAVE STANDING when challenging the law.

They pick and choose who to enforce it against, targeting people they don’t like and ignoring the rest. It actually makes cops MUCH more powerful and much more able to oppress citizens who, for example, oppose the police.

So grats, the cops won’t arrest you for this… unless you have a bumper sticker with a pot leaf, or you make a comment a cop doesnt like, or you look at a cop funny, or you’re black, or or or or or…

kaltes on July 2, 2013 at 8:30 PM

Enough with “follow the law” babbling. It’s not strategic thinking. Sometimes in political wars, you need a catchy stunt, and non-violent resistance works well to create martyrs. Most often cops don’t arrest people who commit open crimes for political purposes, because it creates useful martyrs for the cause. It’s actually better that cops don’t arrest those doing the non-violent resistance because it would encourage more non-violent resistance because it helps groups to advance political goals which subvert the law. (And subverting some laws, like gun control laws, is a good thing.)

Only when protest get way out of hand like the Occupy movement should force be used.

Washington and Colorado became the first states to vote to decriminalize and regulate the possession of an ounce or less of marijuana by adults over 21. Both measures call for setting up state licensing schemes for pot growers, processors and retail stores. Colorado’s law is set to take effect by Jan. 5.

A person holds a freshly rolled marijuana joint, Thursday, Dec. 6, 2012, just after midnight at the …Technically, Washington’s new marijuana law still forbids smoking pot in public, which remains punishable by a fine, like drinking in public. But pot fans wanted a party, and Seattle police weren’t about to write them any tickets.

Yet nothing was done to a bunch of people with pot related bumper stickers…. yes kaites is an idiot.

We’ve been giving the Courts a pass for this BS on gun rights for way too long. We’ve started to see recall initiatives for legislators… now we need to see impeachment proceedings for imperial judges who simply ignore the Constitution…

now we need to see impeachment proceedings for imperial judges who simply ignore the Constitution…

fabrexe on July 2, 2013 at 10:41 PM

And don’t forget recall for judges at the state level. Impeachment may require initiation by the House and removal by the Senate. But recall (refusal to retain) is a direct vote of the people. Iowa did it in 2010, removing THREE judges who voted to overturn a law prohibiting same sex marriage. Their decision stands, but the vote put the fear of God, or Gaia, or whatever, in them. Apparently it had never happened before, but now they know it is an option, and we’re watching them.